C4

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly believes that President Obama’s upcoming announcement on temporary relief for some undocumented immigrants will lead to “suicide for America because he would be bringing in people who will vote Democratic.”

“I think it’s worth impeachment, but I don’t think that’s going to happen,” she told the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily, adding that the president wants to “bring us down” and “fundamentally transform our country into something like the Third-World countries.”

“If he goes ahead with his plans, I think it’s suicide for America, because he would be bringing in people who will vote Democratic. That’s his plan,” Schlafly said. “And bringing people the American people do not want, and he’s already bringing in all kinds of diseases.”

Schlafly doesn’t think the United States would survive in its current form under a massive grant of amnesty. She even agreed the collapse may happen by 2025, as conservative author Patrick Buchanan suggested in the title of his 2011 book, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

“[Obama] is trying to fundamentally transform our country into something like the Third-World countries, because he thinks it’s just really unfair that we’re better, richer, freer and more prosperous, and he’d like to bring us down to the level of other countries,” Schlafly said.

The longtime conservative activist said she expects another border surge, like the one this past summer, once word of Obama’s “deferred action” plan spreads throughout Central America. She also thinks amnesty by executive action rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

She sees Obama and other Democratic Party leaders as complicit in the importation of people who don’t share the American value of self-reliance.

“The Democrats know perfectly well that the people coming in are people who are not accustomed to our ideas of self-government and limited government, and they expect government to take care of them, and that’s what we’re doing,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Mike Huckabee is currently leading dozens of conservative pastors through the U.S. and Europe on a junket he’s calling “Mike Huckabee’s Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II Tour.” On Friday, the group stopped at Auschwitz and Birkenau, where a speaker inevitably compared today’s America to Nazi Germany.

Huckabee, who has repeatedlywarned that the U.S. is transforming into Nazi Germany, invited Kitty Werthmann of Eagle Forum to discuss her experience living in Austria during the Nazi takeover.

Werthmann frequently travels the country speaking about what she sees as similarities between President Obama and Adolf Hitler, warning that Obama is ushering inNazi-styletyranny and urging people to stock up on guns: “Keep your guns and buy more guns.” She also believes that Obama and Mexican immigrants are planning a Marxist “revolution” and told one Tea Party group, “I heard President Obama say anybody who is criticizing him, report it to the White House, the snitch program, so be careful what you say.”

She offered a similar message to Huckabee’s tour group, according to the Christian Post, which also drew a comparison between Nazi Germany and the IRS and a Houston court case involving a LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance.

Retracing the steps of Pope John Paul II in Krakow Poland, Margaret Thatcher in London England, and Ronald Reagan in California, The Journey: A Spiritual Awakening, was designed to exemplify how "God raises extraordinary leaders for extraordinary times." Huckabee explains, "their lives and messages brought hope to generations and freedom to millions by confronting evil everywhere. From their lives and their leadership we can extract immeasurable lessons for every nation wishing to be free and great."

In the wake of Houston Mayor Annise Parker's subpoena of emails and sermons of ministers, his timing, many argue, could not be more relevant. On Friday, November 14,Journey attendees visited Auschwitz and Birkenau and a museum located in the administrative building of Oskar Schindler's enamel factory. On route to Auschwitz, Lane referenced similarities between 1930 Germany and 2014 America. Quoting from Inside Hitler's Germany, Life Under the Third Reich, he paraphrased Martin Bormann's assessment that national socialism and Christianity are "irreconcilable."

Pointing to what was largely a Lutheran country and the former home of the Martin Luther who sparked the Protestant Reformation in 1517, life under Hitler immeasurably transformed Germany's identity and culture. By 1938, much of Germany's Christian practices were eliminated. Crosses in schools were replaced with Hitler's picture, the Bible, with Mein Kampf, Christmas carols and the nativity play were eliminated, and the greeting, "Happy Christmas," was replaced with "Yuletide."

…

Former Austrian Kitty Werthmann helps clarify context and perspective from her experience living seven years under Hitler and three under Stalin. During an unrelated and recent even in New Jersey, she explains similarities between 1938 Austria and 2014 America. Austria was in a deep depression with one third of its workforce unemployed. It's inflation rate and bank loan interest rates were 25 percent. Many Austrians were declaring bankruptcy and begging for food.

She says, "everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force. We were led to believe that everyone [in Germany] was happy. We were told that they didn't have unemployment or crime; they had a high standard of living. We wanted the same way of life in Austria.

"We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler. We were overjoyed and for three days danced in the streets and had candlelight parades."

She lists how the government opened up field kitchens and everyone was fed, crime disappeared under the new government, and within one month people were employed through the Public Work Service.

…

The comparison to America could not be more profound.

American unemployment is 25 percent when including the unreported U-3 and U-6 numbers of those who have dropped out of the workforce are no longer on unemployment, and/or are underemployed working several jobs unable to feed their families. Americans are in 28 billion dollars in credit card debt, with credit card interest rates exceeding 25 percent in most states.

Whether its eliminating prayer in school, the ten commandments from court rooms, disallowing the teaching of creationism and only teaching evolution, removing religious holidays from school calendars, common core redefining the family to include same-sex parents and transgender children as normal, and teaching Islam as part of grade school

Upon leaving Birkenau, Huckabee said, "these people were brutally murdered because they did not fit into the plan of a government that only wanted a people to follow them blindly." He went on to explain that remembering what millions of people believed and did because of the power of one man, Hitler, is not enough. "It's not enough unless it does something to change the way we live the rest of our lives. This is not a time to say I've been to Auschwitz… because when the day comes when we are called upon to put at risk our lives, our families, our fortunes, we have to decide if we will march like lemmings to our death, or take whatever steps necessary to stop the kind of tyranny that results ultimately in what we've been able to see first hand today."

In an interview with Rick Santorum on Tuesday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins claimed that American Christians are being persecuted because the U.S. “began to normalize behavior that had long been considered inappropriate” and that such supposed persecution in the U.S. is contributing to violent religious persecution around the globe.

“You hate to use the term persecution, because when you look around the world, we see real religious persecution,” Santorum, who was guest hosting Steve Deace’s show, said. “We see people dying, churches being burned, we see mass killings of Christians, so I sort of tread lightly on the world persecution.”

But, he added, “this is really the first time in this country where we’ve seen any kind of coordinated effort of government really imposing its will on the American public and forcing them to comply or else.”

Perkins told Santorum that he need not use caution in referring to things like nondiscrimination ordinances in the U.S. as “persecution,” telling him “there is a correlation…between the increase in persecution abroad and the increase of intolerance from our own government here at home.”

“They feel like if it’s not a priority for us to have religious freedom here at home, then certainly it’s not going to be a priority for us to speak out for the persecuted peoples abroad,” he said.

Earlier in the program, the two gave a clearer idea of what they mean by the “persecution” of Christians in America, discussing the situation in Houston where a number of pastors received subpoenas as part of a lawsuit filed by anti-gay activists trying to take down the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance.

Perkins commended Santorum for warning America that “this was coming if we began to normalize behavior that had long been considered inappropriate and began to protect it and provide preferential treatment to it.”

Yesterday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins onceagain called for President Obama’s impeachment, telling “Washington Watch” listeners that Obama deserves to be impeached for using executive action to relieve some immigrants of deportation.

“What the president is about to do on amnesty is essentially tell, using his authority as the chief executive, the president, to the executive branch, Homeland Security, immigration, not to enforce the law, which is a violation of his oath to uphold the law,” Perkins said. “I think there is already, but clearly with this, if he takes this approach on amnesty and immigration — if the president does not uphold the law then that’s an impeachable act. Now you don’t impeach somebody because you don’t like their policies, it’s when they fail to uphold or abide by the law.”

Perkins added that Obama’s imminent announcement on immigration policy will undermine the republic, arguing that the message of last week’s election was a rejection of Obama’s “lawlessness.”

In an interview this week with Rick Santorum, who was guest-hosting Steve Deace’s radio program, Rep. Steve King of Iowa said that if President Obama takes executive action to grant deportation relief to some immigrants, he may push for Congress to shut down the government or impeach President Obama in order to prevent the country from “descending abruptly into an abyss that we have never seen in the history of this country.”

King said that if the president were to issue such an order, he would advocate for Congress to only pass a spending bill funding the government until January “so that we could address this thing by shutting off the funding.”

“I don’t want to go down the path that would bring us to where the confrontation between Congress and Bill Clinton in 1998, but neither would I take it off the table,” King said, referring to impeachment. He then compared his strategy for confronting Obama with the president’s national security policy: “The president has said some things like no boots on the ground and the war in Afghanistan is over at the end of 2014. You don’t make those kinds of predictions and you don’t unilaterally disarm. You use all the constitutional tools at our disposal. ”

“Our constitution will be torn asunder if we let the president do this,” King continued.

“What he’s contemplating doing is the equivalent of standing up in front of America, opening up the Constitution, taking ahold of Article 1 — all of the congressional legislative authority — tearing that out and putting it in his shirt pocket and saying, ‘I’ll do the lawmaking in this country, it’s not your business, Congress.’ If we let that happen, our constitutional republic is descending abruptly into an abyss that we have never seen in the history of this country.”

As the American Immigration Council has documented, every president since Eisenhower has used executive authority to grant “temporary immigration relief to one or more groups in need of assistance.”

In an interview on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” program, the Colorado Republican told FRC President Tony Perkins that the Obama administration is “really more motivated and active promoting things like lesbian and gay rights, transgendered [sic] rights and those kind of issues” than in preventing religious persecution.

“We have the sad situation of persecuted religious minorities in the Middle East and other parts of the country, including Christians and other various sects out there, that are being really persecuted, sometimes they’re being beheaded or crucified or tortured because of their religious views,” he said. “So the State Department,y ou would think, would want to be all over that, would want to be pressing for countries to be respecting the rights of religious minorities.

“But it seems like they are really more motivated and active promoting things like lesbian and gay rights, transgendered [sic] rights and those kind of issues to the neglect of religious prosecution [sic]. And I just want them to pay attention to the severe and deadly prosecution [sic] of Christians and other religious people wherever that occurs in the world.”

Perkins agreed, saying that “Christians are dying around the world and they’re doing nothing.”

The claim that the Obama administration is “doing nothing” to combat the persecution of religious minorities around the world is a frequent refrain among Religious Right commentators — and it’s completely deceptive.

In fact, when President Obama announced airstrikes in Iraq this summer, he cited ISIS’s violence against Yazidis, Christians and other Muslims as a reason for the intervention. Obama and National Security Advisor Susan Rice recently met with Mideast Christian leaders, one of whom said he “felt how deeply moved he was by what was happening to the Christians there.” Administration officials have repeatedly denounced anti-Semitic and anti-Christian attitudes in the Mideast, and the State Department operates its own Office of International Religious Freedom.

Next week, American Religious Right leaders including the Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell Moore, pastor Rick Warren, Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput, and Latter-Day Saints official Henry Eyring will be joining opponents of LGBT equality from around the world at an interfaith conference on the “complementarity of man and woman in marriage” hosted by the Vatican.

The conference follows a synod at which Catholic bishops considered, but ultimately rejected, proposals to soften the church’s stances on homosexuality, as well as those who have been divorced.

Although he is not listed as a speaker, another prominent American opponent of LGBT equality will also be attending the conference. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in an interview on Newsmax TV today that he plans to attend the conference in Rome and expects the Catholic Church to “make a very clear statement that pertains to marriage and what the Church views marriage to be” to provide “clarity” to the confusion coming out of the recent synod.

“I don’t see the Catholic Church making a great deviation” on the issue of homosexuality, Perkins said. “They can’t because the scripture is quite clear on the issue.”

He added that there has been “a lack of clarity” on the part of the Catholic Church that have “allowed interpretations to be made that are less than accurate.”

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios today called on conservatives to voice their support for impeaching President Obama over his upcoming executive action on immigration reform, telling listeners that “the president has committed many impeachable offenses but impeachment cannot take place unless the will of the people is behind it.”

“The word that no one wants to talk about is the word ‘impeachment,’” Rios said on her daily radio show, insisting that Obama “is far more dangerous than Bill Clinton ever was.”

“Bill Clinton was immoral, selfish, a narcissist with a leftist view, but nothing, nothing, nothing compared to the bizarre, out-of-control, narcissistic, leftist, socialistic leader that we have right now who is running amok,” she said.

At least one of her listeners seems to think that Obama may cancel the next presidential election, telling Rios that the president “is a Muslim and believes in the Muslim life” who is “trying to bankrupt this nation so that he can declare martial law and therefore there will be no more elections.”

Rios replied that the caller is right to believe that “part of his goal is bankrupting the country, I don’t know how you can argue otherwise because that is exactly what he is doing and I think whether he is waiting for martial law to be declared or not I don’t know, I hear from people in the know here that he is trying to divide and cause tremendous dissension in the Republican Party.”

On Monday, President Obama publicly urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt strong rules preserving net neutrality, the principle that internet service providers must treat all data equally.

Obama’s comments placed a previously fairly niche technical issue right into the middle of the national political debate, forcing commentators to take a side on something many of them did not seem to understand. But luckily, many conservative politicians and pundits have an easy way of deciding where to stand on an issue: if Obama is for it, it will destroy America and they are against it!

1. Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz got the right-wing net neutrality pile-on started with a tweet calling the proposal “Obamacare for the Internet."

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

It didn’t really make sense, but as Matt Yglesias notes, that wasn’t the point: “What, if anything, that phrase means is difficult to say. But its political significance is easy to grasp. All true conservatives hate Obamacare, so if net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet, all true conservatives should rally against it.”

2. Bryan Fischer

As soon as Cruz spoke out, his far-right acolytes seem to have felt obligated to follow. On his radio program on Monday, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer struggled to grasp the proposal that he was definitely against, claiming that it would ban internet providers from charging customers more for faster service — something that already happens and that has nothing to do with net neutrality.

3. Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is outraged that President Obama wants to end “the freedom of the internet” and ruin something that’s “working pretty well” because “the government is not involved in it at all.” Apparently unaware that current FCC regulations allow his online network, The Blaze, to stream on an open internet, Beck claimed that regulations preserving net neutrality would end this supposedly government-free system in which he operates his business.

Beck’s cohost Pat Gray accidentally debunked his own point by comparing Internet regulation to the interstate highway system, which he seems to also think remains open and accessible because it’s free from government interference.

4. FreedomWorks

The Tea Party group FreedomWorks got into the game yesterday with a video “clearing up” net neutrality for its supporters.

“Supporters of the plan call it a [uses finger quotes] ‘free and open Internet’ but in reality it’s anything but,” says Somberg. “What net neutrality does is force providers to treat all Web content equally — the same speeds, the same prices, the same access.”

This is simply untrue.

Net neutrality merely says that ISPs can’t slow down, block, or prioritize any content. It doesn’t mean that everything gets treated with the same speed — just that an ISP does nothing to impede or boost any particular content company’s speed. So if it’s fast coming in from the company, it should be fast going out to the end-user. And if the host is slow, then it remains slow.

5. Alex Jones

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones added his own special twist to the net neutrality debate, claiming that it is a “high tech version of what the Soviets and the Nazis and the Chinese Communists and Fidel Castro and every other nut ball did.”

Bonus: David Barton

While net neutrality might have just recently crossed the radar of many right-wing commentators, make-believe historian David Barton has been beating the anti-net-neutrality drum for years. In 2011, Barton called net neutrality “socialism on the internet” and “redistribution of wealth through the internet” and insisted that it is "wicked stuff" that goes against the dictates of the Bible and the Founding Fathers.

This launched Barton into a discourse on the concept of “fairness,” which he said “is a word no Christian should ever use in their vocabulary” because “what happened to Jesus wasn’t fair.”

Alex Jones is thelatestright-wingbroadcaster to completely misrepresent net neutrality, telling “Infowars” viewers this week that President Obama’s support for net neutrality will lead to big government tyranny.

Jones, in his typically paranoid fashion, claimed that the White House will use net neutrality to “shut down” his Infowars website along with the Drudge Report, calling it a “high tech version of what the Soviets and the Nazis and the Chinese Communists and Fidel Castro and every other nut ball did.”

That’s right, supporting equal treatment of internet data and preserve an open internet is just like what Hitler did.

Jones compared net neutrality to paying the mafia not to threaten your family or your business, creating a “nation of sheep ruled by wolves” who will “put you in government housing pins to run your life, bring you down and imprison your children.”

After completely misrepresenting net neutrality, Jones asked God to give him “the strength of the words to unlock the spirit of humanity with a huge awakening to bring these people down forever and to bind them to Hell.”

Jones cited Ted Cruz’s widely mocked “net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet” tweet as proof of his absurd claim that net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet: “I like Ted Cruz, he knows what he’s talking about.”

Small business owners are in favor of reforming our current campaign finance system, according to a new opinion poll from the Small Business Majority. In a nationwide survey last month, 77 percent of small business employers said that “big businesses have a significant impact on government decisions and the political process,” and nearly as many (72 percent) said they believe major changes are necessary to reform campaign finance laws. Only four percent of respondents said they believe no changes are necessary.

Yesterday Sam Becker from the Wall Street Cheat Sheet highlighted the conclusions of the survey:

[T]here is significant concern about the political and economic landscape, and the growing influence of corporate power on the parts of small business owners. With nearly three-quarters of small businesses saying they feel that they are at a disadvantage because of corporate influence in politics, it lends extra credence to the notion that our election process — which typically tends to cater heavily to the small business crowd — is in need of some serious reforms.

This is a good reminder that when enormously powerful corporate interests claim to speak for “the business community,” they are not necessarily speaking for the small businesses that play such an important role in our economy and in our communities. The results of this survey underscore the idea that campaign finance reform enjoys broad support among Americans of diverse professions and backgrounds. Religious organizations, labor unions, and business associations – in addition to many groups in the progressive nonprofit community – are mobilizing around solutions to big money in politics. These solutions include transparency in political donations and public financing of elections, as well as a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending in politics.

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association is angry that President Obama may announce a major overhaul of immigration policy just before Thanksgiving, saying that the proposed deportation relief for many undocumented immigrants, such as the parents of U.S. citizens, shows the left’s contempt towards family values.

“Remember Obamacare was finally voted in on Christmas Eve? This is what they do because they have no regard for, I’m not saying Thanksgiving is sacred, but it’s sacred in the sense that people are thankful, bow before God, celebrate the holidays with their families, at least Americans used to, but the left doesn’t, that’s not so much important to them,” she said.

“What’s important to them is having their way and altering and changing this country as aggressively as they possibly can no matter what it takes.”

These claims, repeated ad nauseam by the anti-choice movement, have found their way into legislative debates and even into court decisions.

But they aren’t true. In fact, they’ve been created and spread by a small, tightly knit group of doctors and scientists who have set up nonprofits, cite each other’s false research and provide “expert” testimony to bolster the cases of lawmakers trying to restrict abortion access.

In a new investigation, RH Reality Check’s Sofia Resnick and Sharon Coutts have uncovered the small network of “false witnesses” who are providing a sheen of respectability to the anti-choice movement’s unproven claims.

“What we’re seeing here is the same strategy that was used by big tobacco and by climate denialists,” Coutts said in a conference call unveiling the research this morning. Like in the efforts to deny climate change or cover up the risks of tobacco use, this small circle of activists “create the artifice that there is genuine disagreement” among doctors and scientists about the safety of abortion care, she added.

In the end, she said, “we are making decisions as a society that are based on literally fictional ideas about the dangers of abortion.”

They create nonprofits, staffed with die-hard ideologues, and set about producing and promoting bogus science, to build the illusion of dissent or doubt over conclusions drawn by peer-reviewed scientific or medical research. They develop their own “research findings” to suit their ideological views. Then they deploy scare tactics, all with the goal of passing laws that suit their agenda.

In this case, the agenda is to promote the theory that abortion harms women’s health—physically and mentally. It’s a strategy anti-choice activists have been working on for decades, but in recent years, sympathetic state attorneys general have been increasingly relying on a cadre of so-called experts who will defend and promote anti-choice laws.

…

Our investigation reveals the close connections between many of the ostensibly independent “research” groups that feature prominently in the anti-choice movement. Several groups, such as the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the Reproductive Research Audit, and the World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education, share many of the same officers and experts.

Our work details how the scientific and medical claims of these groups and individuals have been publicly discredited in episodes ranging from lying to the public, presenting false data in scientific journals, and being forced to retract articles that proved to be works of fiction presented as fact. Other doctors and professors catalogued in this gallery carry impressive credentials, appear to be apt in their fields, and are technically qualified to testify on reproductive-health issues. However, fueled by their religious or political beliefs (or both), many of these professionals have testified in support of unproven or discredited theories.

Right-wing talk show host Michael Savage wants the GOP to reject Loretta Lynch’s nomination to be Attorney General, telling radio listeners on Tuesday that Lynch’s name is a bad omen.

“What a telling name, Lynch – a lynch mob is about to take over,” Savage said. “This woman is a radical that should never be confirmed for the Attorney General’s office. She is as dangerous if not more dangerous than Holder. She has no business in the Attorney General’s office; she is an extreme left-wing ideologue. Just understand what’s at stake: If he puts this one in, we’re going to have two years of Hell in this country.”

Savage especially took issue with Lynch’s opposition to new laws restricting voting rights, which disproportionately affect African-Americans, calling her a “radical leftist” pawn of Al Sharpton who is “too biased to be an Attorney General.”

Savage also reiterated his demand that Republican in Congress move to arrest President Obama, whom he called a “lunatic” and a “megalomaniac,” for his likely executive action on immigration policy.

“Arrest the man,” he said. “Arrest him, go and arrest him, take the sergeant at arms and arrest the man.”

This week, spokesmen for the American Family Association and National Religious Broadcasters, two of the country’s top Religious Right groups, came out strongly against net neutrality, while simultaneously demonstrating that they have no idea what net neutrality actually is. Yesterday, both groups weighed in again, as NRB’s Craig Parshall spoke with Dan Celia of the AFA, both of them completely misrepresenting net neutrality as a threat to freedom.

Parshall and Celia were upset by President Obama’s recent call to reclassify broadband services as a public utility in order to preserve net neutrality rules jeopardized by a recent D.C. Circuit Court ruling. Under net neutrality, internet data must be treated equally by providers rather than allow companies like Comcast or Verizon deliver data at different speeds or charge premium rates.

Celia, however, sees net neutrality as a Big Government plot, describing Obama’s announcement as a “social-control grab, power grab” and a sign of “scary, scary times.”

“This is a huge power grab,” Parshall replied. He said he doesn’t have an issue with companies like Comcast or Verizon but “has a much bigger problem with Apple and Google and Facebook” who he says “have decided that they’re not going to allow certain orthodox Christian or conservative viewpoints being aired on their platform.”

Parshall then absurdly claimed that people should oppose net neutrality if they want to “protect the internet” as a free and open “village green being the place where the public can get together to exchange ideas, that’s going to go the way of the Dodo bird.”

In other parts of the interview, Celia wondered if net neutrality undermines the “freedom of speech” and the ability to “proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” while Parshall maintained that net neutrality is wrong because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” which completely misunderstands the fact that it is net neutrality opponents who seek to dramatically alter internet regulations.

The John Birch Society’s magazine, the New American, covered Gordon Klingenschmitt’s victory in a Colorado state legislative election this week, praising the internet televangelist for standing up to “Right Wing Watch (RWW), the vicious political action arm of the Leftist organization People for the American Way.”

Klingenschmitt was also probably remembering his fight with Right Wing Watch (RWW), the vicious political action arm of the Leftist organization People for the American Way which took excerpts from his TV show and republished them, unedited, except for changing the titles. Those titles were designed to make Klingenschmitt appear radical if not certifiable.

He posted notices of infringement at their YouTube sites and those videos offensive to Klingenschmitt were temporarily removed. He posted those notices, he said, “because I got tired of their theft, copyright infringement and piracy of my original video content.” He continued, "They don’t add any value to the content. They simply steal and copy and post with their own logo. They are not a legitimate news organization."

Typical of the retitling of some of Klingenschmitt’s shows include these:

When RWW pushed back against Klingenschmitt’s successful, if temporary, removal of the offensive YouTube posts, Klingenschmitt sought legal advice. His decision not to sue gave a measure of the man:

My lawyers believe they [RWW] are vulnerable. They said I should sue them, but I don’t want to do that right now because I don’t want to hurt them. My goal is only to defend my content.

…

He’s also unintimidated by the attention he has received from the far Left. When members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community wanted to meet with him to discuss their differences, Klingenschmitt put it off until after the election and then only on the condition that each individual attending go through a background check first.

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared on Newsmax TV’s “America’s Forum” talk show this week to weigh in on Republican victories in the midterm elections.

After host J.D. Hayworth, a former Arizona congressman, asked Gingrich how he “as a historian” sees Obama, Gingrich predictably launched into a tirade against President Obama’s policies, particularly the Affordable Care Act, and what he sees as the impending failure of the Democrats in the next election cycle. Gingrich blamed President Obama’s supposed mishandling of issues like Ebola and ISIS on the fact that the president is both radical and incompetent.

“I think he is the most radical president in American history. But what makes it fascinating is he is incompetent and radical,” he said. “You’re really running a big risk if you’re both incompetent and radical. I think in a lot of ways you’re seeing someone who is in over his head.”

His gross incompetence, Gingrich explains, is why Obama “goes and golfs because that way at least he doesn’t have to think about it.”

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly chatted with “Infowars” host Alex Jones on Monday, where the two discussed the Pentagon’s decision last year to lift the military ban on women serving in combat positions.

Schlafly raised her concerns about the lifting of the ban after Jones worried that the military might be used as a “domestic force” to “go after the Tea Party,” telling the fringe conspiracy theorist: “I don’t have any respect for the military who send women into combat.”

After Jones suggested that Reagan went silent on criticizing the “New World Order” after a failed assassination attempt against him, Schlafly conceded that “Reagan wasn’t perfect” — a blasphemous claim in certain right-wing circles — but still loved this country.

Unlike Obama!

“You’re saying, bottom line he was a good guy who loved this country,” Jones said. “That’s a big difference from Obama who obviously wants to destroy it.”

Schlafly agreed: “He obviously doesn’t love this country, he doesn’t want us to think we’re better than anybody else and of course we are.”

Phil Burress, head Citizens for Community Values, the Ohio affiliate of the Family Research Council, told Religious Right activist Molly Smith this week that a proposal to expand Cleveland’s nondiscrimination ordinance to include protections for transgender people would allow “mentally disturbed” people to “be around women and girls in a women’s restroom.”

“A transgender person is a mental disorder,” Burress insisted, adding “it would take someone who has a mental disorder that would want to walk into a women’s bathroom in the first place.”

“This is directly tied to the same-sex unions, the same-sex marriage debates,” he concluded. “This is exactly what they want, they want to force you to comply.”

Burress also falsely claims that the new regulations would apply to churches.

Saleem did however speak about Seven Mountains theology, or the belief that conservative Christians need to control the seven main spheres of societal influence, citing the work of Os Hillman, whom he refered to as “O.S. Hill.” Saleem said that he fears radical Islamists have “infiltrated” America’s “seven spheres of influence,” pointing to an interfaith service at the National Cathedral as proof that the “Chrislamic church” is “destroying our civilization from within.”

He added that America is experiencing what he calls the “Swedish syndrome.” In that country, he said, “when the Islamists came to takeover they started prying on the political leadership” until eventually the Swedish “leadership started protecting them and one day he came to protect them and led their movement over there so now it’s led by the politician of Sweden and the Muslims are taking over the civilization. Same thing is happening here in the United States.”

If the Islamist plot to take over America isn’t turned back, Saleem explained, “America will be fallen” by 2020.